Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
that means each screener processes 25 to 30 profiles in an 8 hour shift, that's a lot.

Seriously??? You think that's a lot? It's EASY to process that amount in a hour. Acually it wouldn't be hard to do 120 per hour. I don't believe that screeners verify every source. They just read contribution notes and compare them against what has been contributed. 30 sek. per profile max. If you think that 30 per 8 hours is a lot, you haven't done a day of hard work in your life.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Would that it were that easy, kulju, We are all screeners/voters, to do it correctly it is not at all unusual for it to take me 10 mins.

25 profiles in 8 hours gives about 19minutes per profile. I just voted 5 profiles and I read the contribution notes and compared them against the actual contributions and it took me less than a minute. Maybe some of us are just slower than the others by nature.

If I was the boss and somebody took ten minutes tho check one contribution, his/her behind would have been fired a long time ago. 

But on the other hand, 10 screeners      This company is Ken and Gerri, that's all.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Quoting Jimmy S:

Quote:

But I take it personally when one of my profile is rejected by the screener of my database

I don't because declines don't have a personal agenda. All it means is that either the screener or I have made a mistake - easily corrected in both cases.

Kathy it's because I'm the screener for my contribution to my database

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Quoting Kulju:

Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
that means each screener processes 25 to 30 profiles in an 8 hour shift, that's a lot.

Seriously??? You think that's a lot? It's EASY to process that amount in a hour. Acually it wouldn't be hard to do 120 per hour. I don't believe that screeners verify every source. They just read contribution notes and compare them against what has been contributed. 30 sek. per profile max. If you think that 30 per 8 hours is a lot, you haven't done a day of hard work in your life.

30 seconds, seriously? 

I take longer than that(not 10 minutes either, unless I do not trust the contributor at all) when I evaluate profiles (unless it is something very simple).  I don't go through and verify every source in the notes, and make judgments based upon who the contributor is. I would be comfortable with 15 to 30 per hour (2 to 4 minutes a profile) depending on the complexity of the contribution.  If you are doing 120 an hour, then you are approving profiles based strictly on yes or no votes, which is also not the right way to do it.  If you want detailed reasons for a decline, then add another minute per declined profile.

My opinion

Charlie

I agree with Kulju. The contributions we vote on is for titles we own (or claim to own). No way Ken and Gerri own every title in the database, so for the majority it comes down to a glance at the Yes votes and a cursory check of the data being submitted. I highly doubt they are going through these with a fine tooth comb as small minority of the people who vote do.

Having done it myself (checked data submissions for DVDs), the majority of titles took me less than a minute for ones I didn't own, a minute or two for ones I did. There were times I could knock out 100+ in an hour. Because not all were full on submissions and most were just corrections of spellings, adding a name or two, etc.

An average of under a minute is very fair.


Forum Moderator: Removed

Quoting Kulju:

Quote:

Next time, just for fun take time. Two minutes is a really long time in this case.

Even at a minimum, 45 seconds on a very basic profile

I have timed myself.

Open a profile for viewing,
Read the contribution notes,
Looking at the contribution and evaluating it against the contribution notes,
Opening the votes (this would be the minimum approval),
Looking at the no votes and evaluating the contribution against the no votes,
Glance at yes vote comments (And maybe reevaluating),
approving profile or declining profile (or for the user, voting yes (with or without comment) or voting no (with required comment)).



For the evaluator (screener) should be a minimum process for any profile.  Aside from the fact, that the screener may have to make a judgement on a profile that goes against no votes or 0 votes (significant improvement), or to make an evaluation on an image contribution that has yes and no votes.

It should be irrelevant wither the screener has the title in question or not (he is not going to pull it out any way, for that is not his job).

The real trouble is this, the voters should be the ones to properly vet the contribution, and there are many that don't.  There are many more of us, than there are of them, and we typically have 5 to 6 days to consider a contribution.  We can choose not to vote at a time and come back and reevaluate it later. 

We are asking the screeners to evaluate a contribution in a very short time, based on what? 

If we would do our "job better", the screeners job would be much easier

Voters, instead of just "rubber stamping" contributions, evaluate the contribution against the rules and disc/cover.  Owners are the ones that should be voting on these, for they are the ones that can pull it out to evaluate (I would even be in favor of extending from 5 to 6 days out to 10 days, if voters would actually take the time.

Contributors.  Keep track of you contributions, and recontribute (if warranted).  If voters point out errors, a contributor should be willing to pull the profile, correct the problem, and recontribute.  This is not a speed contest, or a quantity contest.  This should be a contest about getting it "right".

If we all do our job, then the screeners would be able to do 70 to 100 (maybe more) an hour.

In all, it really is up to us.

Charlie

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Btw, moonwatcher in the end of your diatribe you go on at length about there being no doubt as to sources. If the notes are not clear how can there be no doubt. The screeners do not have access to every title. It is for the contributor to be clear in explaining the sources used to assemble the profile or to change existing data and do so within our rules. What I hear you saying is that you don't wish to take the time to submit clear and explanatory notes, maybe I am wrong, but you want invelos to clearly tell you why you were declined. <shrugs>

I may understand and agree what you say. But the issue is that we buy an "empty" database where the main and hight point is sharing our time thanking that other is doing the same. That times has a limit. One issue is the rights involved with a database (e.g. copy from IMDB or other legal sources without permission infriges rights). But other issue is TO COPY one part from an accepted and published contribution. If the supervisor requires to inform exactly UPC or other significant elemnt to proof that what you are saying is true, then my position probably will not to contribute any more. My time is also worth as the money I paid for this database and the great  Invelos community who are enough generous to contribute. I really don't have time for looking at the details of the Invelos sources I copy for including it in my contribution. Why? My DVD/BR database is in Spain. I have more thant 3,000 titles and find that meanwhile in english community there are a lot of contributions. Not in spanish editions. I have started just one-two months ago. Nearly more than 50% of spanish edition titles are not in Invelos. Do you really are against that I would help top correct that unusual situation just only because a supervisor decline my contributions when I copy the cast and crew from an accepted UK or US contribution?

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Nothing is stopping you to do so. But if you do... you must do it the way Invelos requests it to be done. It only takes a moment to note the UPC/EAN that you got the info from... this way Invelos can double check the source. IMHO if you refuse to give them what they are requesting then the contributions should be declined. I got the same decline reason once. Since then I was sure to give them the UPC I got the info from and never had a problem with declines (for that reason) since.

Ditto, I copy cast, crew and other information from one UPC to another all the time because one version is more filled out or for whatever reason.  All I do is I note the UPC it was copied from and I have never had an issue

Quoting Moonwatcher59:

Quote:
But other issue is TO COPY one part from an accepted and published contribution. If the supervisor requires to inform exactly UPC or other significant elemnt to proof that what you are saying is true, then my position probably will not to contribute any more.

Assuming I understand you correctly, I am at a loss here.  You have the time to find and download an existing profile that was created by other users, copy their work into your profile, upload the new profile, but don't have the time to copy and paste the UPC of the source profile into your contribution notes?  I'm sorry, but I just don't get it.